Has the Secret Been Discovered to Surpass the Stradivarius?

[mmasters]

Here's another wrinkle on the economics. Could you recover that $500 when selling the mandolin on the used market? Or would mentioning it in the ad, be an admission that the mandolin wasn't that great to begin with, and needed "fixin'"?

Similar issues revolve around the question of luthiers using and promoting enhancement processes, obviously. Is the luthier's skill and experience alone, not enough to deliver a great mandolin? How would one feel about a luthier that said they could deliver the equivalent of a Gilchrist at half the price (or less), not because of their skills, but because they use some gadget or process to make up the slack?

Some mighty sticky wickets there. Me, I just look for instruments that sound good to begin with, and don't need "fixin'".

It doesn't come off an artificial enhancement in any way, it's very natural sounding because it is unlocking the dormant "it" factor in wood and making it sound spectacular.

I personally am after the holy grail so I look for the best and then enhance it for myself. On the other hand, a lot of what people have sent me have been guitars that were overly tight or lacking in some tonal respect. That is what the testimonals on my site are based on.

[mmasters]

But this completely ignores the construction differences between guitars, mandolins and violins. Furthermore, it assumes that whatever enhancements you claim to have observed in guitars would be desirable in another type of instrument, even if you were successful in reproducing them.

Have you at least tried it on archtop guitars as well as flattops?

I've tried it on many different types of steel string acoustics and a few nylon string guitars, all with great success. I've also tried it on a few solidbody electric guitars (though the effect wasn't quite as dramatic with them). One of my clients is looking to send over a Sanzone Carmella archtop soon.

[Jim Hilburn]

When you come in my house the first thing you see hanging on the wall are the first 3 mandolins I ever made. The first one is over 30 years old now. I depended very heavily on the first Siminoff book. There were very few resources for wood and parts then. I used viola woods from Vitali's.
The point is even though I played the hell of that mandolin by todays standards it is pretty thin sounding. I primarily attribute that to the back being way too thick. I was pretty unaware of the importance of a responsive back at the time. I'd be interested to know how any process could overcome what I believe could only be improved by making a substantial pile of sawdust.

[mmasters]

When you come in my house the first thing you see hanging on the wall are the first 3 mandolins I ever made. The first one is over 30 years old now. I depended very heavily on the first Siminoff book. There were very few resources for wood and parts then. I used viola woods from Vitali's.
The point is even though I played the hell of that mandolin by todays standards it is pretty thin sounding. I primarily attribute that to the back being way too thick. I was pretty unaware of the importance of a responsive back at the time. I'd be interested to know how any process could overcome what I believe could only be improved by making a substantial pile of sawdust.

Send it over. I'm offering to do a few free treatments to prove the actuality of this.

[Rick Cadger]

Having performed it on a multitude of guitars I have no question the results will be every bit as spectacular on a mandolin or any other wooden stringed instrument.

This stunningly blatant assumption serves to undermine any claim of respect for science or scientific method.

You have "no question"? Personally I would suggest that a question is exactly what you should have. You should be burning with the desire to PROPERLY, scientifically test this process in which you purport to have such faith.

Let us suspend disbelief and accept, for the sake of argument, that it lies within the realms of possibility that your process may affect wood in such a way that the attenuation mentioned by our technically experienced friends is reduced; so that more of the energy imparted to the string is applied to the production of sound. Let us further suspend disbelief and accept that sustain and volume may both benefit to some small extent from an increase in efficiency, and a reduction in wasted energy.

I absolutely accept Dave Cohen's explanation of why one cannot normally increase both volume and sustain, so it seems that the only possible way your process could work is if it achieves an absolutely remarkable improvement in the efficiency of the way energy applied to the string is made to produce sound, rather than being wasted as heat etc.

Such a process must surely produce measurable changes in the wood. That being the case, posting in a forum frequented by builders and scientists in order to advertise an expensive process, making claims invoking the Stradivari name and claiming that your experiences with guitars (so far no archtops) imply certainty of success with other, untested, very different instruments - all of this before you have proper, independent scientific studies and results - was, Mr Masterson, like walking into a room with a "kick me" sign on your behind.

That being the case, and in light of your ill-considered comments regarding the integrity of respected members, responses have, IMHO, been pretty mild and reasonable.

Also IMHO, a few free treatments will produce no "proof", just more worthless anecdotal "evidence".

Proper tests performed by a university may be more valuable, provided the tests are truly independent and competent, and that the parameters and conditions are verified and published.

Do it right. Prove your process openly and honestly. You'll get a much easier ride and you'll alienate fewer people.

[Bertram Henze]

Do it right. Prove your process openly and honestly. You'll get a much easier ride and you'll alienate fewer people.

Second that. Seeing who is supposed to be attracted by this, it should not be sold like a cleaning agent to housewives. If the effect is real, modesty and a slow-at-first but exponentially growing circle of customers (based on results, not words) are keys to success; or, as they say, a good product sells itself.

[hank]

This morning a fresh thought that should be considered here. The sound plates of carved top instruments have to be made thick and strong enough to prevent sinking or collapse with time. Some thinner plates have been built more resonate but with short lives due to their top sinking. If this process is capable of making the wood more resonate isn't there also a possibility that it could weaken the plates?

[fscotte]

Instruments are placed in a machine that transforms semi-liquid resins into a solid crystalline form.

I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation. Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.

[mmasters]

Second that. Seeing who is supposed to be attracted by this, it should not be sold like a cleaning agent to housewives. If the effect is real, modesty and a slow-at-first but exponentially growing circle of customers (based on results, not words) are keys to success; or, as they say, a good product sells itself.

True, I'm just impatient. The majority of business I have at this point is from repeat customers and word of mouth. The last guy that dropped of a guitar found out about it by really liking the way another's Collings sounded at a gig in NC.

[Bertram Henze]

"perhaps we should engage him on the process"

Ok, my question is: if the material properties of the wood are changed in such a fundamental way...

...is it still wood?
...does it still sound like wood?
...wouldn't those different properties be easier to achieve by using different materials in the first place, such as carbon fiber or metal? Could we follow this development to a logical ultimate end and find - the resonator mandolin?

Some before/after soundclips would be helpful, if not proof.

[mmasters]

This morning a fresh thought that should be considered here. The sound plates of carved top instruments have to be made thick and strong enough to prevent sinking or collapse with time. Some thinner plates have been built more resonate but with short lives due to their top sinking. If this process is capable of making the wood more resonate isn't there also a possibility that it could weaken the plates?

Having treated some wood samples and tested breakage of them, I couldn't detect any difference at all.

With the instruments I've treated I haven't seen any evidence like unusual bow, warpage or stability problems, if it were a potential problem I'm pretty certain it would have shown up by now.

[mmasters]

"perhaps we should engage him on the process"

Ok, my question is: if the material properties of the wood are changed in such a fundamental way...

...is it still wood?
...does it still sound like wood?

Yes it's still wood, the electron microscope images show that pretty clearly. It makes wood sound better than I've ever heard it (and yes, I've been to boutique shops and played from almost every high end builder out there). The only instruments that have approached sounding as good are a small number of pre-war Martins and instruments made from very highly selected resonant woods from premium stashes, built lightly with from makers like Ervin Somogyi.

The studio clips I have on the website are the best I have up for the time being and I've perfected the process a little more since then. I'm looking to get some better ones done in the future and by an independent 3rd party.

[Darren Kern]

I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation. Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.

+1

[Rick Cadger]

I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation. Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.

Where are these attacks I read about?

[fscotte]

For anyone interested, Alchemy Acoustic Labs has a very similar process:

Alchemy Acoustic Labs’ AO1™ Process
http://alchemyacousticlabs.com/the-process/



edit: I will say that I've done a little searching on various forums and have found a couple reputable gents who had their guitars sent to Masterson. The result was their guitars had more sustain, more tone, more volume, etc... you get the subjective picture.

But it appears to be something substantial. A little searching at umgf and AGF forums can result in some interesting reading. Masterson keeps the same forum name, mmasters, so he's easy to find. Seems like an interesting process that yields some improvement - although still subjective and vulnerable to the human factor.

[mrmando]

OK, so there are not one but two mysterious processes purported to improve the sound of a guitar. The Alchemy Acoustic folks also claim that their process increases both volume and sustain, although they have some obfuscating language around the sustain claim.

There's also the ToneRite. What do you suppose would happen if I gave a guitar the ToneRite treatment, then shipped it off for both the Stradivarius and Alchemy Acoustic processes? Would the effect be cumulative -- i.e., would the guitar sound 3 times as good as it would if I did only one of the processes? Or would an already-treated guitar not respond to further treatment? Or would one or more of the processes cancel the other ones out and return my guitar to its original state ... or worse yet, make it sound like ####? Which brings up another question: are any of these processes reversible, should I decide I don't like the results? What sort of guarantee is offered, if it turns out that I liked the sound of the guitar better before it was treated? Would the person(s) applying the process be liable to reimburse me only for the cost of the process, or for the cost of the guitar as well? Or neither?

Whew. Maybe I'll just stick with the O-Port.

[mmasters]

Heh, that o-port is ridiculous!

My process is the only one that carries a money back guarantee.

As far as the other guys...I prefer to let the results speak for the matter.

[Bigtuna]

Many of them have permanent residences, but are on careful loan and getting regular play.

http://5magazine.wordpress.com/2010/...s-still-exist/

It looked like two banks own various ones, my bank doesn't loan mandolins. That goes agains everything a sign a friend of mine had at his fish house, "The bank doesn't loan fish, and I don't loan money." Pretty interesting read, thanks for posting. Is there such a list for loars?

Sorry to veer off topic...

[Big Joe]

I cannot speak for Mr. Masterson process, but the Tone Rite and Prime Vibe are fully reversible by simply not playing the instrument for a period of time. They do not alter the instrument in any way except to give it the effect of having been played for a very long time. Just as natural opening will improve an instrument in tone and volume, the artificial exciters do the same. And, in the same manner, the same thing happens when you don't play a well broken in older instrument that happens if you do the same with the TR or PV and don't play the instrument for a good period of time. These two devices do not do anything or give your instrument anything that is not already there. It only accelerates the time it takes to get there.

[Bertram Henze]

If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in a nutshell?

Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?

[mrmando]

Pretty interesting read, thanks for posting.

Hm -- the list does not mention the 1696 Strad stolen from Ms. Kym in London last week. I had been wondering whether that one had a nickname. Well, if it didn't, it does now! They'll be calling it the "ex-Kym," or maybe the "Cheese-and-Pickle Sandwich"!

Is there such a list for loars?

Indeed there is: the F5 Journal.

[mrmando]

If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in a nutshell?

Either that, or they try to simulate the effect of the instrument being played for a similar period of time.

Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?

Maybe! Of course people in the 1700s also thought Strads were pretty darn good, even though they weren't yet 300 years old.

No one knows what a Loar will sound like after 300 years of playing. It's possible that they may not sound as good then as they do now. I hear tell that Sam Bush has all but retired Hoss because he believes that Hoss is pretty much played out, and doesn't have the sound it once had.

[mmasters]

If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in a nutshell?

Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?

The objective of all these processes has been to recreate the vintage tone in newer instruments; however, in going along this path, I discovered something I believe to be more remarkable.

I can't say it's "the" secret to old violins, however I think it is a key part that has never been understood until now. And by taking it up another level as my process is doing I believe it can make for instruments of a tonal quality that have not been heard before.